not how safe we are but how patriotic we are. tomorrow.oney" with melissa francis is next. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what's "money" tonight. tapping into 26 billion barrels of oil. shell fires up long-awaited drilling off alaska's coast with a controversial project is still far from being in the clear. we'll explain that coming up. plus who is creating more jobs, democratic or republican governors? maryland's governor claims democrats are doing it at twice the rate of republicans. hmmm. that math seems a little fuzzy to us. we'll recrunch those numbers. new report says gm is losing up to $49,000 on every volt? is that possible? and they had record sales last month that could be bad, right? how much longer can gm keep

volt on the road without pulling the plug? even when they say it's not it is always about money. melissa: and first let's take a look at the day's market headlines. stocks opened the week to the downside. investors care schuss ahead of the fomc meeting this week. the dow was down 52 points. intel was the dow's worst performer. its shares taking a tumble again today. intel cut its earnings outlook on friday. that has analysts quite worried. hewlett-packard announced it will cut another 2,000 employees over the next two weeks. the news brings the total planned layoffs to 29,000. but investors apparently welcoming the news. the shares of hp closed the day up nearly 1%. to our top story tonight. after 20 years of government pushback offshore drilling in the alaskan arctic is finally back. just this weekend

royal dutch/shell began drilling in the sea to test the size of deposits there. shell paid almost $3 billion for the leases that was four years ago. you can bet the company is hoping the investment will pay off. we got word it is temporarily halted drilling today, one day after it began because sea ice moving in towards the company's drill ship off alaska. tefco and phil flynn price futures group and a fox news contributor. phil, they have temporarily stopped. we're just getting this word. it is breaking news right now. not totally unexpected in that kind of climate though, right? >> not at all. in fact we're going to see a lot more of that as time goes. i mean in the quest of proven reserves, these companies are going to go to great lengths to try to improve their possibility of proven reserves. this is just a chance of how desperate shell is to do this. this is basically a very high-risk, strategy and they have spent billions of dollars just to get to this point. even if the ice melts today

it would still take years to bring that oil to market. melissa: it does but it tells you a lot about the potential value there if they're willing to spend this kind of money to try to bring it to market, right? >> it does but you know it is amazing the politics of it as well because i don't think shell is drilling in the best spot. i think what they're doing is try to get, get into the arctic incrementally. they're saying all right, this isn't the best spot but just to make the government happy. to make environmentalists happy we'll start here and we'll slowly work our way into the rest of the arctic. the truth of the matter is, if shell had their way i think they would be drilling in different areas but they have to do, you know, they have to play the game that the government is going to give them. melissa: but is that going to work? i could see the government making just the other argument. we let you go here. i can't believe you want even more than that? >> well i think what they're going to try to do show that the return on their investment is not going to

be very high and make the case there are better places to make a return. the face it, if you look at the federal government and a -- alaska and return on federal lands it was been zero because the government makes it difficult for oil companies to make progress. i'll tell you what may light a fire under the government to allow these companies to start moving into different areas. it's when other countries like russia who think they own the arctic start drilling there and start having some type of a return. it would be that type of a moment i think that will push america in the right direction when it comes to the arctic. melissa: that's interesting. so when do you think that happens? >> i think it is going to happen now. russia is already making plans to drill in the arc i can it. it will be like a space race except under the arctic to get to the bottom of the ice. i think we're going to move in that direction because there is plenty of reserves in the arctic. not necessarily where shell is drilling but in other parts of that area. melissa: is president obama try to claim this as a win

in the same way when of somebody makes an argument that prices at pump are more than up 100%. one in his camp says there is more drilling going on than there was three years ago. we opened up this more land. is this something he tries to use toward his advantage, saying look what we let happen. >> absolutely. that is why it is approved so close to the election the government has been fighting this for many, many years. environmentalists, lawsuits and absolutely, and people in the energy industry would like to get the word out. drilling isn't expanding because of president obama. it is expanding in spite of hill. to be honest with you this president has done more to slow down oil production, despite the incredible returns that the industry has made, you know, with all the negativity from --. melissa: other than the xl pipeline which obviously is a big one transportation downstream. what else has he done slowed

it down? >> he has one of the most militant epas. we closed down more refineries because of those policies. he has not allowed drilling on expanded federal lands. he is not allowing fracking on federal lands. all of the production in fracking has come in the private sector. and on private lands. you know, and of course he wants to tax the energy industry more. he was just attacking the energy industry. one of the highest-taxed businesses in this country is the energy industry. and he wants to take away tax incentives that they give to every other industry. melissa: how is that possible though? everybody always says exxon doesn't pay any taxes. there is a benefit of all the tax incentives from the government, getting all our taayer money? how is it possible they're saying they're so highly taxed? where is the disconnect. >> that is ridiculous. i could show you the number. look attacks you pay on your gas tax go directly from exxonmobil. absolutely not true. i'll tell you another thing. the energy industry is one of the most booming sectors

of the obama economy and not because of him. if it wasn't for the jobs that the energy industry has created because of the technologies like fracking and drilling, you know, unememployment rate in this country would be a lot higher. if i was president obama instead of attacking energy industry i would pat them on the back, keep up the good work, guys. create more jobs. unemployment would be not 8% but 10%. i think he under estimates the impact of the energy industry. melissa: we need energy to help the economy all the way around. phil flynn, thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. melissa: it is all about jobs. i heard phil bring it back to that. recently on another network the democratic governor of maryland, martin o'malley said one party is better than the other putting people back to work. here is what he said. in july, states that had democratic governors had twice the rate of job growth as states that have republican governors.

he wasn't challenged on that other network that remain unnamed. there is someone named joe who host as morning program. that is all i know. that narrows down to two. we checked his math. turns out he got it exactly backward. larry hogan, founder of change maryland. his math was a little off, right? he said democratic governors added twice as many jobs as republicans? the truth is exactly the opposite. republican governors added 80,000 jobs, 79,000 in july. democratic state governors on average, 38,000 jobs. it was exactly backward, right? >> exactly. our governor sort of has a reputation for mixing up the numbers and, you know, just a continuation of that. here are the facts. the states that have republican governors have an unemployment rate that is full one point lower than the states with democratic governors. and the seven of the 10 states in the country with the lowest unemployment rates have republican governors.

12 out --. melissa: what do you think? is it a coincidence? is it just math? what's the difference? >> it is not a coincidence at all. i think republican governors across the country, many have got the message. they're making tough decisions. they're reining in spending. they're reining in entitlement programs. they're cutting taxes and taking burdens off the private sector, the job creators. that is exactly why states with republican governors, 12 out of the 15 state that are rated the highest for business, the most business-friendly have republican governors. in our state, for example, in maryland, we have increased spending by more than almost anyone in the country and we've raised taxes 24 times in a row. what happened was --. melissa: when asked about that though, isn't it also about the climate that creates for business? for example in chicago they lost a big factory to iowa because the owner said he just doesn't trust the local government. but to do what? is it about, you know the tax system there? is it about employees?

what are the details. >> there are a lot of reasons companies make decisions. tax burden and regulatory burden and general attitude toward business. we're losing alarming rate, businesses jobs taxpayers out of maryland into virginia because they have a more attractive business environment. that is happening around the country. melissa: that is happening all around the country. people are leaving california and going to neighboring nevada for same reason, they get better treatment, better tax treatment and their employees take home more pay because the tax burden is lighter. makes it easier to do business. at the same time maybe fub pubs are not doing enough. looking at 79,000 jobs. that average was quite the democratic states that is still not enough. >> it is absolutely not enough. states are sort of a great laboratory seeing what we can do to fix the economy and some of the states that have republican governors,

that made the tough choices, more business-friendly and cutting tacks and spending are doing much better. creating not enough jobs, nobody is satisfied but better than the states where we're increasing spending and taxes and too many regulation that are unfriendly to is about. it is tough to get the private sector to grow jobs when you have a hostile environment to the job creators. melissa: if runaway government has spending how is that impact negatively on business? >> for example, we increased spending in maryland more than any state in the country. we raised taxes 24 times that places incredible burden on our state. we're competing with virginia. companies can decide which side of the potomac river to go to. they go to the lowest burdens and where they're taking jobs. we lost a number of fortune 500 companies. we lost 6500 small businesses that left the state. melissa: at the end of the day someone has to pay the bill. larry, thanks so much for joining us.

we appreciate your time. >> thank you. melissa: democrats coming up short on their convention bill. one of the nation's largest energy company is stepping to help cover the tab. is it crony capitalism run amok? we have details on that coming up next. chicago's 26,000 public school teachers hit the picket lines. sorry, parents, causing turmoil across the wind did i city. will officials cave to union demand? i'm asking chicago alderman joe moreno coming up. [ male announcer ] wouldn't it be nice if there was an easier,

less expensive option than a traditional lawyer? at legalzoom you get personalized services for your family and your business that's 100% guaranteed. so go to legalzoom.com today for personalized, affordable legal protection.

♪ . melissa: "the washington post" report says that the charlotte host committee which raises money for the democratic convention is relying on a $10 million line of credit from duke energy, after falling $5 million short of its fund-raising effort for the convention. ceo of duke, jim rogers, even spoke at the convention. the committee disputes the report but certainly raises a lot of questions about crony capitalism. with me is tom borelli, freedom works senior fellow. tom, there is another wrinkle to this cozy story what is going back and forth. duke received $200 million

in stimulus money as well. >> absolutely. this is crony capitalism gone wild. there is real marriage between the democratic party and duke energy. obama stimulus fund gave duke energy a $200 million grant. keep in mind, duke gets 5% dividend to their investors. so our taxpayer money went to duke and they rewarded their shareholders. this is outrageous. jim rogers has gone all-in for president obama. he was on the host committee. and then he had the audacity to use corporate assets to back the convention and they also, they're also became a bank. they're a utility. now they're a bank for the dnc. also gave them free office space. now they're a realty agent. melissa: i thought that was amazing. i wasn't sure within the bylaws how it is possible. >> bylaws? melissa: they're a utility. how could they give a $10 million line of credit to the committee? one of the things they tried to say in their defense, it wasn't about democrat or republicans. it was trying to bring the

business to the state. but if the dnc defaults on this line of credit their own shareholders are the ones on the hook there for, you know, the president's re-election campaign? >> absolutely. again this is crony capitalism gone wild. look into the bylaws, i'm not sure. that is where shareholders should be. jim rogers is on cnn and asked him the big question, are we better off than we are four years ago? he said with energy policy we are. my god, what is this man thinking? hasn't he looked at a gas pump? doesn't he know coal companies are going bankrupt? melissa: maybe he is heavily invested in green energy. >> that is part of the deal. remember he lobbied for cap-and-trade, which by the way didn't go through. now we just have the regulations through epa and no trade. that leaves duke energy in bad position because they use a lot of coal. that is makes it bad for everybody. melissa: a lot of ceo's shilling with president obama for their own interests. jeff immelt has been accused doing same thing for ge. you see people like charles

koch who wrote an he would tomorrow in "the wall street journal" while he is someone who benefited from influence, at the same time this is why 68% of the voters say they believe government and big business work together against the rest of us, against the rest of america. >> absolutely. they're joined together. obama wants higher utility prices. he said energy prices would skyrocket. duke energy wants higher utility prices. it will fall apart because the people have to go through the utility commissions for some of these rates to go up. it will backfire anyway. people are already being squeezed. melissa: when you hear elizabeth warren saying system is rigged against the regular buy. this is one way that it is. >> absolutely. this is the a great classic case of crony capitalism and why it is bad for everybody. who wins? the political operatives, a few companies. but in the long term, shareholders suffer and most importantly we the people suffer. melissa: you would think that shareholders would benefit of course because they got that $200 million. as you pointed out they get

the dividend. here's a case where they might be on the hook for president obama's re-election expenses. >> long term, remember cap-and-trade didn't go through. they have epa crushing utilities with those expensive regulations. that is going to be passed on to somebody. shareholders will be in trouble. melissa: very frustrating. >> absolutely. thank you. melissa: thanks for coming on to talk to us about it. it is frustrating. you know about what is going on. all right. it is official chicago's public school teachers hit the picket lines today, shutting down classes for 350,000 students in the nation's third largest school district. this is the first time in 24, 25 years, pardon me. is this all really about salary schedules or is the real sticking point having higher percentage of teacher evaluations linked to student performance? with me is chicago alderman joe moreno. joe, thanks for joining us. let's get right to it. if i were a parent in chicago today, when you get the message you have to make another plan for your child today, if you're working a

parent what are you supposed to do? >> absolutely. i agree, melissa. thanks for having me. we do have a contingency plan we're having schools and parks open for kids to come to but let's cut to the chase as you said. this strike is a shame they're on strike. they should not be. they should be in the, teachers, we have fantastic teachers. i support the teachers. but the union by calling this strike made a severe mistake. our kids are not being taught. our parents are having to find other coverage for them. it is a shame. it should have never happened. they're very close on a couple small issues. melissa: alderman, i have a couple problems with what you said already. you say the teachers are doing a great job. alarms me here anyone is asking for pay raise when you look at facts, 15% of the fourth graders are proficient in reading. >> 15%? >> right. melissa: in 2012 chicago's freshman dropout rate was 39.4%. that is just terrible. i'll give you last one.

only 60% of the chicago high school students graduate, compared to national average of 75%. given those statistics why does anyone deserve to keep their job, much less get a raise in this situation? >> well, you bring up a great point. we have some of the best schools in chicago, some of the top 10 schools are the best schools in illinois. melissa: how is that possible with those stats i gave you. >> let me finish, melissa. we some schools that are very challenged. we're trying to reform education. anytime we talk about reforming education, doing charter schools, doing turn around schools which i totally support we get push back from the chicago teachers union. they're a conservative union, a progressive union. they're stuck way back in the '60s and '70s. we need to move forward. unfortunately i have three charter schools in my ward. they're open today, melissa. this is going to make people want to graph tate towards charter schools more and more in the chicago area. melissa: if you know answer, what is right for parents,

why don't you blow up the traditional schools and have more charter schools? you say you see better results but the problem hear is the union. why not just get rid of them right now. >> right. so we're getting a new charter. we got a new charter school. we have three in my ward. we're doing turn around school at clemente high school with 3,000 seats. they are 900 seats. they're on probation for 14 years. ibe. those are the things we need to work. we know ib programs work. we note charter schools work. we know turn around schools work. when we're doing more and more and more of that in chicago. if we don't have a partner at the table willing to be progressive, i want to reward teachers doing a great job even more than they are today, but we can not continue to protect bad teachers. we have some of those. melissa: i'm looking at details of things you're fighting over right now in this contract. i'm on your side but it is not even close. the details that you're talking about here, the two

to 4% salary raises, maybe having 50% of the teachers evaluation linked to student test scores and student evaluation. all those things that the unwon't even agree to now are not even close to the changes that you're talking about with charter schools and trying to get the union out of control. seems like you're nowhere close to getting done what you need to get done. >> well, first of all i'm not at the negotiating table. cps, alderman are not negotiating this contract. i haven't been in one discussion on that. i'm here representation of my ward, my parents and my students. what i want to do, melissa is push forward on education and not go backwards. so if the teachers union wants to hang on, and it is not the teachers. i talked to many teachers today, i talked to many parents that aren't happy about this. a certain leadership hell-bent on and i, i'm not, i not only angry but i'm sad. i have students that are not going to school in my ward today. i have 15 elementary schools. three high schools. one is charter school so

they're going. that aren't going to school. if they want to negotiate these things, do it while the kid are in school. you do not need to strike to do this. and quite frankly, i think we're going to have result in next day or two. as long as a strike goes out the worst it will be. we need kids in the classroom. i don't know if you know this, melissa. we used to have shortest day in chicago in the nation. we have longer school day. we need longer school year. these are kind of reforms i'm pushing for and others pushing for. melissa: i'm sorry we're out of tile. i hope you get all that done. my heart goes out to the parents with kids trapped in the school system that want a better education. hope you work for them. sound like you are. thanks for coming on the show. >> thank you, melissa. melissa: here is our question of the day. should a higher percentage of chicago teachers be judged as part of their contract? maybe we need more charter schools? we want to hear what you think. facebook.com/melissafrancisfox

or on twitter at melissaafrancis. a stunning new report shows gm is losing 49 grand for every volt sold. how is that possible? how much more money can they afford to throw out the window. we'll have details next. the taliban reportedly wants peace with the u.s. and afghanistan but at what price? what could it cost taxpayers? we'll talk about this stunning report that is coming up. do you ever have too much money? not possible. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: so a new report from reuters suggests that chevy volts are running out of juice. the report suggests that chevy is losing $49,000 for every electric car it sells.

foxnews.com automotive editor is here to crunch those numbers. gary, how in the world that's possible that they're losing that much on every car? run through the math and tell me if you agree with it. >> they haven't sold a lot yet and costs a lot to develop. they're saying $56,000 per car sold to date. $32,000 each to make and costs $39,000, that is how you get to a $49,000 deficit. this is based on estimate of $1.2 billion in development costs. it is per car. a year ago that was twice as much. a year from now it will be a lot less than $56,000 per car. is a snapshot of volt production. melissa: obviously was initialal fixed cost of start up. how much will they get the original investment? >> at rate volts are selling depending how long they stick with problem. they have to sell 120,000 cars before we they star

making money on this. sales are egg up but not at that. melissa:. >> really additional to this. that is more money. that is not money going to general motors. that is money going to the person buying the car. melissa: so, but, okay, last month, go back to the sales number. last month they had record sales but they also closed down a plant for a month to kind of catch up on inventory. so what is like the net-net how much people actually like the cars? >> they will shut the plant on september 17th. scheduled to down a month. last time they shut down the plant it wasn't closed down as much as they expected to. they're trying to catch up. estimated 84 day supply. you want to get that down to the 60. what helped in august was pretty intensive marketing campaign, some money on the hood and california recently approving the car use in hov leans and extra tax benefits as well. that definitely boosted august sales. whether or not that continues through september,

october, we'll have to wait and see. melissa: there are so many conflicting numbers. you're an expert that follows the industry so closely. is this a popular car or not? >> if you be look at plug-in hybrid cars or electric cars it is the most popular one. sold 2800 in august. next best seller toyota prius plug-in. same sort of car. sold 1,000. ford has electric version of the ford focus. they sold 34 period of those. it is popular plug-in car. hybrid cars in general. melissa: do people love hybrid cars in general? on a grand scale what impact? >> people that buy them love them. the impact is not great. gasoline is not expected expensive as it was four years ago. it was solidly $4 a gallon. it was less than that. they're doing pretty well in fuel economy. there is not the demand there might be for these

kind of cars. that will certainly change over the next decade or so. we'll see what happens. melissa: maybe. it is cheaper and people like to drive the smaller regular gasoline cars that can serve more fuel you don't have to plug them in and cheaper to buy in the first place. it hasn't made sense for people with or without the incentive to go out buy the cars, right. >> plug-in electric cars about the volt are not about saving money. they're about people not wanting to use gasoline at all and being willing to pay a premium to do that. later this year ford, honda will be introducing cars just like the volt, very similar to the volt. of course we have a lot of electric cars coming next year. they will not be volume players. they will be niche players for years to come. melissa: for people with money to burn. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. so peace for a price the taliban is reportedly pushing for a cease-fire with the u.s. in afghanistan. but could it come with a serious cost to taxpayers? we'll break down the story for you next. plus despite a down day for stocks, nearly 100 of

the s&p 500 stocks are at or near all-time highs. isn't that surprising? have regular investors missed the boat or should they jump in? "piles of money" coming up. ♪

♪ . melissa: so here's an unexpected military development. there are reports that some high level taliban officials are ready to work with u.s. troops in afghanistan in return for financial support. what else? but at the same time the taliban is announcing that these reports are made up, and they're using their members to coop ture and kill britain's prince harry who just started a one-year tour in afghanistan fresh from vegas. joining me the president of the global security

intelligence firm, diligence llc, mike baker. thank you for joining me. >> sure. >> when i looked at the report it had just enough truth to seem like there is something in there. >> right. we have gotten reports in the past where it has been announced that karzai is quietly negotiating with the members of the taliban to get them to the negotiating table. then some commander from the taliban will say that is nonsense. part of that obfuscation, part of that confusion is delivered on the part of the tall ban. it is absolutely true that the u.s. primarily working through afghanistan and karzai in afghanistan are trying to get to the taliban in the table. the administration would like to be able to do that because some in the circle who believe without the taliban's participation in the negotiations we can't have a particularly tidy exit in 2014. melissa: yeah. on this show we say at the end of the day it is always about money. of course that is what the taliban is talking about here. they want cash in return for whatever else. can they be trusted at all?

can you make a deal and expect it to be honored? >> short answer is no. long answer is no. no surprise. i'm not a buyer on afghanistan and idea we've been there for this long. when you talk about return on investment, and, i'm a partner in a mid-sized company at this point and we're always talking about this, here in afghanistan we'll have to ask ourselves once we leave what exactly was the return on investment? we were spending, there was international donor conference in the summer. we tried to strong arm a lot of countries to come together say after we leave, let's continue the support. they got 16 billion in pledges. most of that frankly the u.s. we're spending in 2013 two.$5 billion which is a little increase over this year. that doesn't take into account the money that is required to keep the afghan military and police moving after 2014. that will be about another 4 billion a year. melissa: yeah. you made a great point in the break. i was just in the strait of hormuz. i was with people that were

currently flying missions over afghanistan off the uss enterprise. there are human lives at risk. we're spending money but the point you made was, we can't just leave. when we leave what happens? >> well, we will have to leave. there is no way that we can sustain this past 2014. i don't think anybody, regardless what happens in november in the elections i don't think romney, if he wins they're not going to want to continue this effort. we'll try to do that slow, withdrawal we've been doing in iraq. that is jury still out in iraq how that will all shake out. afghanistan, a much more pessimistic on. we haven't learned much, if anything from the experience the soviets had there we're not seeing that we're going to be able to leave a long-term, stable karzai government. karzai i think himself understands he needs the taliban. otherwise he is swinging from a lamppost putting it in diplomatic terms. once we leave, if karzai hasn't been able to barter and negotiate some fashion with the taliban, i think he

is in serious trouble. the taliban, on the other hand, they're not politically stupid. and most of the senior commanders understand, look they have got some leverage right now. the he's wants them to come to the table. karzai needs them to ce to the table. they come to the table. they get some concessions, a cut of money going into afghanistan it will cost us more. melissa: if things change are things better off when the deal gets done? >> i say absolutely not. melissa: that is depressing. mike baker. >> sorry about that. melissa: depressing and clarifying the situation for us. all right. nearly 100 s&p 500 stocks are heading toward all-time highs. how many more are following suit? look where investors should look to jump on board. at the end of the day and we say it is true, it is all about money whether you like it or not. we'll be right back. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: may seem like the market is still far from a

full recovery but many stocks are still soaring. many s&p 500 stocks are hitting or coming within 5% of their all-time highs. since the crash of 2008 investors have been skeptical getting back in the game and with good reason. are they right to get off the sidelines or are they missing out on the whole thing? with me is scott martin. scott, thanks so much for coming back on the show. first thing i saw this morning when i saw so many stocks were sitting near all-time highs was so many people out there have missed this because they were burned by the crash. they feel like the market is rigged but here's proof you can make money. >> really can. i mean the headline's great, right? that is a great story for the market. if you look around and look at the indexes it certainly makes sense. i think you're right. i think the average consumer out there, melissa, has been burned really badly in the last recession and i think companies have too. i think that's the other thing going on here. what is really behind this

performance from these company stocks? to me it is profitability. profitability in companies is at all-time highs. they're not hiring people and getting more out of workers and stock prices are benefiting from that. melissa: my 5-year-old told me in the car this morning i should buy apple and amazon stock. i guess if he had said that couple months ago he would be a genius. it was on its way up. those are two of the stocks sitting at all-time highs. would you pile in at this point or does everyone in my son know these are hot stocks so it's too late? >> think your son is right. one thing, amazon, apple, apple is one of those cold stocks, almost like a consumer staple at this point. when you look at stocks at all-time highs, melissa. you need what to see is in the business model and we're relying on consumer spending money these days it is probably a good thing. i like those two areas of the market. melissa: relying on consumer out there spending but does anyone really have any money to spend at this point? have companies sort of,

these are the ones, you had anything to buy their products but have they stretched the leash as far as they can go? they have cut their costs as much as they can. they soaked up as much money out there but how much is left for them to continue to make? >> listen i think it is more than people think. melissa: okay. >> why? we could have had the conversation last year people said profitability topped out of the look what happened, we're still growing and that's good. your point is interesting one. companies are sitting on records amounts of cash. they're using cash to sit on the balance sheet and fill up columns and not really are. and d, capital investment, things like that. they have money if they wanted to pay more to people and people spend more than they have to. you have a job posting out there, 20, 25 people show up for the same job. melissa: scott, if you're an investor at home who is sitting there saying to themselves i've been sitting on sidelines all this time and i'm going to dive in and do something, what is one thing you would tell people to do? >> i would tell them to take their money and put it in

increments. like you said we're at all-time highs but certainly we can go higher. i would put money in over the course of the next six months. watch seasonality. market does well in the fourth quarter of the year. we're coming up to the fourth quarter. i think that is good spot to be in. melissa: scott, thanks. he always has good advice. corruption in new jersey? say it isn't so. the fbi throws the mayor of the state capital behind bars. only in jersey. you can never have too much money. ♪ .

will be one we were already having fun and now you can join us. it is time for a little fun with spare change. today we are joined by ashley webster and liz macdonald. >> we were talking about josé canseco. melissa: you were. liz and i were not. here is some good news out of greece. real estate properties for luxury properties are up 50% compared to the first part of

the year. i have to tell you that you keep going over there and you should buy me something. >> maybe there is a problem. i will pay you when you get back i arrive with cash in hand, it may be better. the russians and the chinese are buying up the greek islands righ now. germany flippantly said sell the ultimate fixer upper. [laughter] melissa: i wonder if you buy the property, with you on the hook for as far as government? >> i didn't but they are less than the cost of a condo in manhattan and london, but you might as well buy on the surface of the moon. stores are shutting down, businesses are shutting down. melissa: i don't know, even those is so fabulous, i would

wonder what the government would come looking for bonaire out of cash. next up, the fbi has arrested new jersey's mayor tony mack. he faces charges. his demonstration has been in charge of nepotism and reckless spending. >> what gets me is they were using nicknames for tony mack out of it be level monster movie. little guy, napoleon, the cooks involved in the scandal, they said, he was just and only involved in good corruption and he was taking money so others could do business with the city. it is like, what are you talking about? melissa: is housing director quit after he had a conviction.

his chief of staff was arrested for buying heroin, and his brother was arrested at a city water plan in charge of stealing. >> during the sting operation, one of the people arrested, a fat man. joe gianni, he said i love money so much i'll hit the floor. melissa: maybe we have lifted this from a completely wrong perspective. here here's another one, what would you pay for a piece of the cake? it sold for more than $94,000. this bible has hand written notes. the king wrote in it. $94,000 spread. >> i was thinking it should be more. this dates back to 1957.

i love the king, i love elvis presley. i also want his cookbook. i think i should go for more. >> there was a pair of his unwashed and soiled underpants under his famous white jumpsuit eddie ward. the bids got 5000 pounds from about $7500, and they do not have the minimum. >> lines that up for auction? >> who would pay 5000 pounds? melissa: before we go, do keep your phone on when you're flying? 40% of passengers admit that they do. the odds that all passengers on board turn off their phones is less than 100 quadrillion. this is ridiculous. the egos of companies have been admitting to me that it does not make a difference having your phone on for this just proves that itd